salvation of mankind' (De Princip., iv. 108; compare Klausen, Hermeneutik des Neuen Testamentes, Leipzig, 1841, p. 104, sq.).

Since, however, allegorical interpretation cannot be reduced to settled rules, but always depends upon the greater or less influence of imagination; and since the system of Christian doctrines, which the Alexandrine theologians produced by means of allegorical interpretation, was in many respects objected to; and since, in opposition to these Alexandrine theologians, there was gradually established, and more and more firmly defined, a system of Christian doctrines which formed a firm basis for uniformity of interpretation, in accordance with the mind of the majority, there gradually sprung up a dogmatical mode of interpretation founded upon the interpretation of ecclesiastical teachers, which had been recognised as orthodox in the Catholic church. This dogmatical interpretation has been in perfect existence since the beginning of the fourth century, and then more and more supplanted the allegorical, which henceforward was left to the wit and ingenuity of a few individuals. Thus St. Jerome, about A.D. 400, could say:Regula scripturarum est: ubi manifestissima prophetia de futuris texitur per INCERTA ALLEGOBLE non extenuare qua scripta sunt (Com. ment, in Malachii. 16):-The rule of scriptures is, that where there is a manifest prediction of future events, not to enfeeble that which is written by the uncertainty of allegory.' During the whole of the fourth century, the ecclesiasticodogmatical mode of interpretation was developed with constant reference to the grammatical. Even Hilary, in his book De Trinitate, i. properly asserts:-Optimus lector est, qui dictorum intelligentiam expectet ex dictis potius quam imponat, et retulerit magis quam attulerit; neque cogat id videri dictis contineri, quod ante lectionem præsumpserit intelligendum. He is the best reader who rather expects to obtain sense from the words, than imposes it upon them, and who carries more away than he has brought, nor forces that upon the words which he had resolved to understand before he began to read.'

After the commencement of the fifth century, grammatical interpretation fell entirely into decay; which ruin was effected partly by the full development of the ecclesiastical system of doctrines defined in all their parts, and by a fear of deviating from this system, partly also by the Continually increasing ignorance of the languages in which the Bible was written. The primary condition of ecclesiastical or dogmatical interpretation was then most clearly expressed by Vincentius Lirinensis (Commonit. i.):-Quia Videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sua altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipiunt, sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur, ut pæne quot homines sunt, tot illine sententiæ erui posse videantur...... in ipsa catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est:Since the Holy Scriptures, on account of their depth, are not understood by all in the same manner, but its sentences are understood differently by different persons, so that they might seem to admit as many meanings as there are men, we must well take care that within the pale of the Catholic

| church we hold fast what has been believed every where, always, and by all' (Compare Commonit. ii. ed. Bremensis, 1688, p. 321, sq.) Henceforward, interpretation was confined to the mere col|lection of explanations, which had first been given by men whose ecclesiastical orthodoxy was unquestionable. Præstantius præsumpta novitate on imbui, sed priscorum fonte satiari :—' It is better not to be imbued with the pretended novelty, but to be filled from the fountain of the ancients (Cassiodori Institutiones Divinæ, Præf. Compare Alcuini Epistola ad Gislam; Opera, ed. Frobenius, i. p. 464. Comment. in Joh. Præf., ib. p. 460.` Claudius_Turon, Prolegomena in Comment. in libros Regum. Haymo, Historia Ecclesiastica, ix. 3, &c.). Doubtful cases were decided according to the precedents of ecclesiastical definitions. In his quæ vel dubia vel obscura fuerint id noverimus sequendum quod nec præceptis evangelicis contrarium, nec decretis sanctorum invenitur adversum :- In passages which may be either doubtful or obscure, we might know that we should follow that which is found to be neither contrary to evangelical precepts, nor opposed to the decrees of holy men' (Benedicti Capitulara, iii. 58, in Pertz, Monumenta Veteris German. Histor. iv. 2, p. 107). But men like Bishop Agobardus (A.D. 840, in Galandii Bibl., xiii. p. 446), Johannes Scotus, Erigena, Druthmar, Nicolaus Lyranus, Roger Bacon, and others, acknowledged the necessity of grammatical interpretation, and were only wanting in the requisite means, and in knowledge, for putting it successfully into practice.

During the whole period of the middle ages the allegorical interpretation again prevailed. The middle ages were more distinguished by sentiment than by clearness, and the allegorical interpretation gave satisfaction to sentiment and occupa tion to free mental speculation.

When, in the fifteenth century, classical studies had revived, they exercised also a favourable influence upon Biblical interpretation, and restored grammatical interpretation to honour. It was especially by grammatical interpretation that the doinineering Catholic church was combated at the period of the Reformation; but as soon as the newly sprung-up Protestant church had been dogmatically established, it began to consider grammatical interpretation a dangerous adversary of its own dogmas, and opposed it as much as did the Roman Catholics themselves. From the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century this important ally of Protestantism was subjected to the artificial law of a new dogmatical interpretation; while the Roman Catholic church changed the principle of interpretation formerly advanced by Vincentius, into an ecclesiastical dogma. In consequence of this new oppression the religious sentiment, which had frequently been wounded both among Roman Catholics and Protestants, took refuge in allegorical interpretation, which then re-appeared under the forms of typical and mystical theology.

After the beginning of the eighteenth century grammatical interpretation recovered its authority. It was then first re-introduced by the Arminians, and, in spite of constant attacks, towards the conclusion of that century, it decidedly prevailed among the German Protestants. exercised a very beneficial influence, although it

It

and on those of the New Testament in separate | works. For instance, G. W. Meyer, Versuch eiser Hermeneutik des Alten Testamentes, Lübeck, 1799; J. H. Pareau, Institutio Interpretis Veteris Testamenti, Trajecti, 1822; J. A. ErDesti, Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, Lipsia, 1761, ed. 5ta., curante Ammon, 1809. Translated into English by Terrot, Edinburgh, 1833; Morus, Super Hermeneutica Novi Testamenti acroases academica, ed. Eichstaedt, Lipsiæ, 1797-1802, in two volumes, but not completed; K. A. G. Keil, Lehrbuch der Hermeneutik des Neuen Testamentes, nach Grundsätzen der grammatisch-historischen Interpretation, Leipzig, 1810; the same work in Latin, Lipsiæ, 1811; T. T. Conybeare, The Bampton Lectures for the year 1821, being an attempt to trace the History and to ascertain the limits of the secondary and spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, Oxford, 1824; Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik und Kritik mit besonderer Beziehung auf das Neue Testament, herausgegeben von Lücke, Berlin, 1838; H. Nik. Klausen, Hermeneutik des Neuen Testamentes, aus dem Dänischen, Leipzig, 1841; Chr. Gottlieb Wilke, Die Hermeneutik des Neuen Testamentes systematisch dargestellt, Leipzig, 1843.*-K. A. Č.

INTRODUCTION, BIBLICAL. The Greek αυτὰ εἰσαγωγή, in the sense of an introduction to a science, occurs only in later Greek, and was first used to denote an introduction to the right understanding of the Bible, by a Greek called Adrian, who lived in the fifth century after Christ. Αδριάνου εἰσαγωγὴ τῆς γραφῆς is a small book, the object of which is to assist readers who are unacquainted with biblical phraseology in rightly understanding peculiar words and expressions. It was first edited by David Hoeschel, under the title of Adriani Isagoge in Sacram Scripturam Græce con Scholiis, Augustæ Vindobonæ, 1602, 4to. This work is reprinted in the London edition of the Critici Sacri, tom. viii.; and in the Frankfort edition, tom. vi. Before Adrian, the want of similar works had already been felt, and books of a corresponding tendency were in circulation, but they did not bear the title of eioaywyh. Melito of Sardis, who lived in the latter half of the second century, wrote a book under the title Kλeîs, being a key both to the Old and to the New Testament. The so-called Aéţeis, which were written at a later period, are books of a similar description. Some of these Aéges have been printed in Matthæi's Norum Testamentum Græce, and in Boissonade's Anecdota Græca, tom. iii. Parisiis, 1831. These are merely linguistic introductions; but there was soon felt the want of works which might solve other questions; such as, for instance, what are the printitles which should guide us in biblical interpretation. The Donatist Ticonius wrote, about the year 380, Regulæ ad investigandam et inveniendam Intelligentiam Scripturarum Septem. St. Augustine, in his work De Doctrinâ Christianâ,

* The writer of this article does not seem to have become acquainted with a very valuable work on the general subject, recently published in this country, under the title of Sacred Hermeneutics developed and applied; including a History of Biblical Interpretation from the earliest of the Fathers to the Reformation, by the Rev. S. Davidson, LL.D., Edinburgh, 1843.

(iii. 302), says concerning these seven rules, that the author's intention was by means of them to open the secret sense of Holy Writ, quasi clavibus,' as if it were by keys.

There arose also a question concerning the extent of Holy Writ-that is to say, what belonged, and what did not belong, to Holy Writ; and also respecting the contents of the separate biblical books, and the order in which they should follow each other, &c.

About A.D. 550, Cassiodorus wrote his Institutiones Divinæ. He mentions in this work, under the name of Introductores Divina Scripturæ, five authors who had been engaged in biblical investigations, and in his tenth chapter speaks of them thus :-Ad introductores scripturæ divinæ

........

sollicita mente redeamus, id est TICONIUM Donatistam, Sanctum AUGUSTINUM de doctrina Christiana, ADRIANUM, EUCHERIUM, et JUNILLUM, quos sedula curiositate collegi, ut, quibus erat similis intentio, in uno corpore adunati codices clauderentur:-'Let us eagerly return to the guides to Holy Writ; that is to say, to the Donatist Ticonius, to St. Augustine on Christian doctrine, to Adrian, Eucherius, and Junillus, whom I have sedulously collected, in order that works of a similar purport might be combined in one volume.'

Henceforward the title, Introductio in Scripturam Sacram, was established, and remained current for all works in which were solved questions introductory to the study of the Bible. In the Western, or Latin church, during a thousand years, scarcely any addition was made to the collection of Cassiodorus; while in the Eastern, or Greek church, only two works written during this long period deserve to be mentioned, both hearing the title, Zúvovis Tês delas Ypapñs. One of these works was falsely ascribed to Athanasius, and the other as falsely to Chrysostom.

At the commencement of the sixteenth century the Dominican friar, Santes Pagninus, who died in 1541, published his Isagoge, by means of which he intended to revive the biblical knowledge of Jerome and St. Augustine. This work, considering the time of its appearance, was a great step in advance. Its title is, Santis Pagnini Lucensis Isagoge ad Sacras Literas, liber unicus, Coloniæ, 1540, fol.

The work of the Dominican friar, Sixtus of Sienna, who died in 1599, is of greater importance, although it is manifestly written under the influence of the Inquisition, which had just been restored, and is perceptibly shackled by the decrees of the Council of Trent. Sixtus had the intention, worthy of an inquisitor, to expurgate from Christian literature every heretical element. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which was then first published, had the same object; but Sixtus furnished also a list of books to be used by a true Catholic Christian for the right understanding of Holy Writ, as well as the principles which should guide a Roman Catholic in criticism and interpretation. The title of his work is, Bibliotheca Sancta ab A. F. Sixto, Senensi, ordinis prædi catorum, ex præcipuis Catholicæ Ecclesiæ auctoribus collecta, et in octo libros digesta, Venetiis, 1566. This book is dedicated to the Cardinal Ghisleri, who ascended the papal throne in 1566, under the name of Pius V.: it has frequently been reprinted.

The decrees of the Council of Trent prevented the Roman Catholics from moving freely in the field of biblical investigation, while the Protestants zealously carried out their researches in various directions. The Illyrian, Matthias Flacius, in his Clavis Scripturæ Sacræ, seu de Sermone Sacrarum Literarum, which was first printed at Basle, 1567, in folio, furnished an excellent work on biblical Hermeneutics; but it was surpassed by the Prolegomena of Brian Walton, which belong to his celebrated Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, London, 1657, six volumes fol. These Prolegomena contain much that will always be accounted valuable and necessary for the true criticism of the sacred text. They have been published separately, with notes, by Archdeacon Wrangham, in 2 vols. 8vo. Thus we have seen that excellent works were produced on isolated portions of biblical introduction, but they were not equalled in merit by the works in which it was attempted to furnish a whole system of biblical introduction.

The following biblical introductions are among the best of those which were published about that period: Michaelis Waltheri Officina Biblica noviter adaperta, &c., Lipsia, first published in 1636; Abrahami Calovii Criticus Sacer Biblicus, &c., Vitembergæ, 1643; J. H. Hottinger, Thesaurus Philologicus, seu Clavis Scripturæ Sacræ, Tiguri, 1649; Johannis Henrici Heidegger Enchiridion Biblicum ¡epoμvnμoviкóv, Tiguri, 1681; Leusden, a Dutchman, published a work entitled Philologus Hebræus, &c., Utrecht, 1656, and Philologus Hebræo-Græcus Generalis, Utrecht, 1670. All these works have been frequently reprinted.

The dogmatical zeal of the Protestants was greatly excited by the work of Louis Capelle, a reformed divine and learned professor at Saumur, which appeared under the title of Ludovici Cappelli Critica Sacra; sive de variis quæ in veteris Testamenti libris occurrunt lectionibus libri sex. Edita opere ac studio Joannis Cappelli, auctoris filii, Parisiis, 1650. A learned Roman Catholic and priest of the Oratory, Richard Simon, who was born in 1658, and died in 1712, rightly perceived, from the dogmatical bile stirred up by Capelle, that biblical criticism was the most effective weapon to be employed against the Protestantism which had grown cold and stiff in dogmatics. He therefore devoted his critical knowledge of the Bible to the service of the Roman Catholic church, and endeavoured to inflict a death-blow upon Protestantism. The result, however, was the production of Simon's excellent work on biblical criticism, which became the basis on which the science of biblical introduction was raised. Simon was the first who correctly separated the criticism of the Old Testament from that of the New. His works on biblical introduction appeared under the following titles: Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, Paris, 1678. This work was inaccurately reprinted at Amsterdam by Elzevir in 1679, and subsequently in many other bad piratical editions. Among these the most complete was that printed, together with several polemical treatises occasioned by this work, at Rotterdam, in 1685, 4to.;-Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 1689; Histoire Critique des Versions du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 1690; Histoire Critique des principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 1693. By these excellent critical works Simon

established a claim upon the gratitude of all real friends of truth; but he was thanked by none of the prevailing parties in the Christian church. The Protestants saw in Simon only an enemy of their church, not the thorough investigator and friend of truth. To the Roman Catholics, on the other hand, Simon's works appeared to be destructive, because they demonstrated their ecclesiastical decrees to be arbitrary and unhistorical. The Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament was suppressed by the Roman Catholics in Paris immediately after its publication, and in Protestant countries also it was forbidden to reprint it. The Roman Catholic bishop, Bossuet, lamented that Simon had undermined the dogma of tradition, and had changed the holy fathers into Protestants. Simon, as an honest investigator and friend of truth, remained undisturbed; but kept aloof from both Roman Catholics and Protestants, by both of which parties he was persecuted, and died in 1712, in a merely external connection with the Romish church.

The churches endeavoured, with apparent success, to destroy Simon and his writings, in a host of inimical and condemnatory publications, by which the knowledge of truth was not in the least promoted. However, the linguistic and truly scientific researches of Pocock; the Oriental school in the Netherlands; the unsurpassed work of Humphry Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus Versionibus, &c., Oxoniæ, 1705, folio; the excellent criticism of Mill, in his Novum Testamentum Græcum cum Lectionibus Variantibus, Oxoniæ, 1707, folio; which was soon followed by Wetstein's Novum Testamentum Græcum editionis receptæ, cum Lectionibus Variantibus, Amstelodami, 1751-2, folio, and by which even Johann Albert Bengel, who died in 1752, was convinced, in spite of his ecclesiastical orthodoxy (comp. Bengelii Apparatus Criticus Novi Testamenti, p. 634, sq.); the biblical works by Johann Heinrich Michaelis, especially his Biblia Hebraica ex Manuscriptis et impressis Codicibus, Hala, 1720; and Benjamin Kennicott's Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis Lectionibus, Oxoniæ, 1776, and the revival of classical philology;-all this gradually led to results which coincided with Simon's criticism, and showed the enormous difference between historical truth and the arbitrary ecclesiastical opinions which were still prevalent in the works on biblical introduction by Pritius, Blackwall, Carpzov, Van Til, Moldenhauer, and others. Johann David Michaelis, who died in 1791, mildly endeavoured to reconcile the church with historical truth, but has been rewarded by the anathemas of the ecclesiastical party, who have pronounced him a heretic. By their ecclesiastical persecutors, Richard Simon was falsely described to be a disciple of the atheistical Spinoza, and Michaelis as a follower of both Simon and Spinoza. However, the mediating endeavours of Michaelis gradually prevailed. His Introduction to the New Testament appeared first as a work of moderate size, under the title of Johann David Michaelis Einleitung in die Gottlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes, Göttingen, 1750, 8vo. It was soon translated into English. In the years 1765-6 Michaelis published a second and augmented edition of the German original, in two volumes. The fourth edition, which received great additions, and in which many alter

ations were made, appeared in 1788, in two vols. 4ta. This edition was translated and essentially angmented by Herbert Marsh, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, and appeared under the title, Introduction to the New Testament, by John David Michaelis, translated from the fourth edition of the German, and considerably augmented, Cambridge, 1791-1801, 4 vols. 8vo. Michaelis commenced also an introduction to the Old Testament, but did not complete it. A portion of it was printed under. the title, Einleitung in die Göttlichen Schriften des Alten Bundes, Theil i. Abschnitt 1, Hamburg, 1787.

The study of New Testament introduction was in Germany especially promoted also by Johann Solomon Semler, who died at Halle in 1791. It was by Semler's influence that the critical works of Richard Simon were translated into German, and the works of Wetstein re-edited and circulated. The original works of Semler on biblical introduction are his Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Testamenti Interpretationem, Halæ, 1767, and his Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons, 4 vols., Halle, 1771-5.

Semler's school produced Johann Jacob Griesbach, who died at Jena in the year 1812. Griesbach's labours in correcting the text of the New Testament are of great value. K. A. Haenlein published a work called Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testamentes, Erlangen, 1794-1802, in two volumes, in which he followed up the lectures of Griesbach. A second edition of this work appeared in the years 1801-9. This introduction contains excellent materials, but is wanting in decisive historical criticism.

Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, who died at Göttingen in 1827, was formed in the school of Michaelis at Göttingen, and was inspired by Herder's poetical views of the East in general, and of the literature of the ancient Hebrews in particular. Eichhorn commenced his Introduction when the times were inclined to give up the Bible altogether, as a production of priestcraft inapplicable to the present period. He endeavoured to bring the contents of the Bible into harmony with modern modes of thinking, to explain, and to recommend them. He endeavoured by means of hypotheses to furnish a clue to their origin, without sufficiently regarding strict historical criticism. Eichborn's Einleitung in das Alte Testament was first published at Leipsic in 1780-83, in three volumes. The fifth edition was published at Göttingen, 1820-24, in five volumes. His Einleitung in das Neue Testament was published at Göttingen in 1804-27, in five volumes. The earlier volumes have been republished. The external treatment of the materials, the style, aim, and many separate portions of both works, are masterly and excellent; but with regard to linguistic and hist rical research, they are feeble and overwhelmed with hypotheses.

Leonbardt Bertholdt was a very diligent but uncritical compiler. He made a considerable step

critical penetration, and in some parts by completeness. This book contains an excellent survey of the various opinions prevalent in the sphere of biblical introduction, interspersed with original discussions. Almost every author on biblical criticism will find that De Wette has made use of his labours; but in the purely historical portions the book is feeble, and indicates that the author did not go to the first sources, but adopted the opinions of others; consequently the work has no internal harmony. An English translation of this work, with additions by the translator, Theodore Parker, has lately appeared in America, under the title of A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament.

The word introduction' being of rather vague signification, there was also formerly no definite idea attached to the expression BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION. In works on this subject (as in Horne's Introduction) might be found contents belonging to geography, antiquities, interpretation, natural history, and other branches of knowledge. Even the usual contents of biblical introductions were so unconnected, that Schleiermacher, in his Kurze Darstellung des Theologischen Studiums, justly called it ein Mancherlei; that is, a farrago or omnium-gatherum. Biblical introduction was usually described as consisting of the various branches of preparatory knowledge requisite for viewing and treating the Bible correctly. It was distinguished from biblical history and archæology by being less intimately connected with what is usually called history. It comprised treatises on the origin of the Bible, on the original languages, on the translations, and on the history of the sacred text; and was divided into general and special introduction.

The author of this article endeavoured to remove this vagueness by furnishing a firm definition of biblical introduction. In his work, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, von Dr. K. A. Credner, th. i. Halle, 1836, he defined biblical introduction to be the history of the Bible, and divided it into the following parts:

1. The history of the separate biblical books. 2. The history of the collection of these books, or of the canon."

3. The history of the spread of these books, or of the translations of it.

4. The history of the preservation of the text. 5. The history of the interpretation of it. This view of the science of introduction has